Skip to main content

Table 3 Overview of the mapped governance regimes, outcomes and comparators

From: What evidence exists on the impact of governance type on the conservation effectiveness of forest protected areas? Knowledge base and evidence gaps

Study ID Short reference Protected area Outcomes Detailed outcome Governance regime Comparator
101 Armenteras et al. [61] Various in Colombian Guyana Shield: Chiribiquete, Macarena, Nukak, Puinaway. Tuparro, Barranco Colorado, Barranquillita, Cano Mesetas-Dagua y Murcielago, El itilla, Cano Bachaco Guaripa, La Hormiga y Guacamayas Maipore, Lagos del Dorado, Lagos del paso, Bacat-Arara, Vuelta del Alivio, Yabilla II, Barranco Ceiba y Lag, Cano Jabon, Cuenca Media y alta del rio Inirida, Nukak Maku, Parte alta del rio Guainia, Remanso Chorro Bocon, Rios Cuiari e Isana, Tonina-Sejal-San Jose, La Fuga, La Sal, Llanos de Yari (Yaguara II), Piaroa de Cachicamo, Puerto Nare, Puerto Viejo y puerto Esperanza, Tucan de Caño Giriza La Palma 1 Land cover changes between 1985 and 2002 (%) 1 and 4 (national and indigenous reserves) 2 (incl. inside/outside comparison)
102 Bajracharya et al. [58] Annapurna Conservation Area 1, 2, 3 (1) Ecological: Density, basal area, species diversity and species evenness of all the trees ≥10 cm DBH; wildlife abundance changes; (2) Behaviour: resource use and hunting behaviour (count and sighting), (3) Attitudes: attitudes towards conservation (percentage agree) 4 1: Other: local people’s perceptions of change (1), also compared with adjacent areas under traditional forms of land use (but no information on governance there)
103 Baral and Stern [76] Annapurna Conservation Area, various community forests 1, 2 (1) Ecological: improvement of the state of natural resources and effective conservation efforts (scale and percentage agree); (2) Social: Trust towards administering bodies and feeling of their importance (scale 1–5 and %) Other: 1, 3, 4: community-led committees inside national PA managed by a NGO/trust compared to state managed community-led committees outside PA 2
104 Bhagwat et al. [73] Sacred groves in Kodagu District, Karnataka 1 Trees, birds, and macro-fungi: Diversity, species distribution and attributes: pairwise similarity in species composition, comparison between sites in habitat preferences, occurrence of endemic and threatened species, and useful and medicinal species 1, 4 [informal community based governance (sacred groves)], surrounding landscape with coffee plantations 3
105 Bray et al. [63] Calakmul Biosphere Reserve (CBR, Mexico) and Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR, Guatemala) 1 Mean annual deforestation rate (%) 1, 4 (community concessions) 3
106 Chowdhury [119] Calakmul Biosphere Reserve 1 Land cover change (in km2) and persistence (Per cent of cover class in date 1 that transitioned (or not) in date 2) 1 (including within and around the Reserve comparisons), 2, 4 (ejidos) 3
107 De Clercq et al. [93] Various—not stated 1 Mean change in spatial forest cover pattern (ha) and fragmentation 1, 3 2
108 Dressler WH et al. [85] Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park 3 Behavioural change (Sweden farmers/indigenous versus paddy farmers/migrants) under different governance regimes 1, 4, 5 (decentralization and devolved governance) 1
109 Gubbi et al. [80] Periyar Tiger Reserve 2 Attitudes towards conservation and towards PA (scores) 1 (incl.5 through Integrated Conservation and Development project) Other: no intervention versus intervention
110 Hayes [59] Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (RPBR, Honduras) and Bosawas Biosphere Reserve (BBR, Nicaragua) 1, 2, 3 (1) Ecological/(2) behaviour: Agricultural expansion (encroachment activities) produced by mestizo migration (Land cover change for period 1995–2001 in ha); (3) Attitudes: attitudes towards the rules (% agree) 1 (RPBR), 4 (indigenous, BBR) 2
111 Hayes et al. [87] Río Plátano (Honduras), Bosawas (Nicaragua); Baga II, Baga I, Sagara (Tanzania) 1, 3 Conservation outcomes scores composed of: (1) ecological/(2) behaviour: (a) Mesoamerican case: deforestation trends (encroachment level), (b) Tanzania: forest structure measures (basal area, stem density, and mean tree DBH), species composition, incidence of illegal logging 1, 4, 5 3 (Tanzania: not PA)
112 Johnson and Nelson [77] Lagunas de Montebello National Park (LMNP) 1, 2 (1) Ecological: vegetative cover type, regeneration (1/0), and pests (in Pinus spp.) (1/0), extent of groundcover, human activity, and indication and degree of burns (0–3); (2) Attitudes: relationship with external authorities 1, 4 2
113 Stokes et al. [67] Nouabale-Ndoki National Park (NNNP), Lac Telé Community Reserve (LTCR) and some Forestry Management Units (FMUs) 1 Abundance of elephants (dung density (Dung piles/km2) and individual density (Inds/km2)), gorillas and chimpanzees (nest density (Nests/km2) and individual density (Inds/km2) 1, 4 and joined state/private/NGO governance of forest management units 3
114 Kubo H et al. [81] Gunung Halimun-Salak National Park 2, 3 (1) Attitudes: perceptions, attitudes, trust and (2) Behaviour (stated, not measured) of both field staff and local people towards conservation and park (percentage of agree) 1 and “participatory” (educative and consultative participation) 1
115 Licona et al. [14] Biosphere Reserve composed of Bahuaja-Sonene National Park (core) with Tambopata National Reserve (core) and a buffer zone; Native Community of Infierno 1 Ungulate numbers (white-lipped peccary; collared peccary; lowland tapir; red brocket deer) 1, 4 3
116 Forrest et al. [62] Madidi National Park (MNP), Madidi Integrated Management Area (MIMA), Tacana Indigenous Territory (TCO), forestry concessions 1 Rate of forest cover change over different management regimes (annual per cent change) 1, 2 (private concessions), 4 (indigenous), 3
117 Mehring et al. [89] Lore Lindu forest Biosphere Reserve 3 Perceptions of resource extraction (scale) Other: 1 with community conservation agreements negotiated with the help of NGOs 1
118 Mena et al. [127] Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve (and adjacent Patrimonial forests) 1 Rate of forest cover change (ha, %) 1 and 4 (communities manage and have usufruct rights, land is under state ownership) 3 (PA versus patrimony (community) forest (outside)
119 Mgumia et al. [71] 8 Sacred groves (miombo woodlands):Mmeta I, Kalomo, Msago I, Mbeleka I, Ndisha, Mmeta II, Mbeleka II and Msago II and Uganda State Forest Reserve (USFR) 1 Stem density (1/ha), stem basal area (m2/ha), species richness, Shannon-Wiener index, evenness, number of plant families, 1, 4 (sacred grove) 3
120 Monkkonen et al. [74] Various Voluntary Conservation Sites, Managed Forests, Private Forests 1 Biodiversity: dead wood (DBH, length), lichens and fungi Other: Private: Voluntary Conservation Agreements (for compensation), private managed forests Other: Private forest management with and without voluntary conservation programme (compensation based)
121 Mugisha et al. [57] Protected areas with a community-based conservation approach: (1) Murchison Falls (MF), (2) Kibale, (3) Queen Elizabeth (QE), (4) Lake Mburo (LM), (5) Bwindi, (6) Mgahinga and (7) Mount Elgon (ME). PAs with a conventional management approach: (8) Karuma, (9) Bugungu, (10) Semuliki, (11) Kigezi, (12) Katonga, (13) Pian-Upe (PU), (14) Bokora, (15) Matheniko and (16) Kidepo Valley (KV) 1, 2, 3 Threat reduction assessment method/perceptions of conservation performance and outcomes,: (1) Ecological: deforestation; (2) Behaviour: illegal activities, (3) Attitudes: attitudes towards management staff and other practices (percentage agree, scales) 1, 4 2
122 Nagendra [99] Royal Chitwan National Park and other adjacent 2 locations 1 Measured: tree and sapling species richness, species diversity, density, DBH and height; Perceptions: vegetation density and of species diversity (perceptions of a forester, scale); Forest change: density of tree cover, shrub and bush cover, ground cover: (local people perceptions, scale) 1 (national park and national forests), 4 (community forests) 3
123 Nagendra et al. [128] Celaque National Park (CNP), Royal Chitawan NP (RCNP) 1 Rate of forest cover change (stable, regrowth, deforestation %) in the core, buffer and 5 km surrounding area Other: (1) State park without participation, ejidos and private land owners inside park and (2) State park with participation in the buffer zone (started in 1995) with the state tenure 2
124 Nagendra H et al. [65] Royal Chitwan National Park 1 Land cover change over time (% deforested, % regrowth, % degraded, %reforestation, % stable); forest fragmentation: Mean patch area (ha). Mean patch nearest neighbour distance (m), Mean patch shape index, Patch density (1/ha) 1, 4, 5 [(1) a national park; (2) a designated park buffer involving participatory forest management programs; (3) scattered patches of designated community forest; and (4) large areas of adjacent landscape made up of mostly private landholdings under agricultural practices] 3
125 Nautiyal et al. [72] Nanda-Devi Biosphere Reserve and surrounding forests 1 Tree species inventory and forest structure: Density (1/ha) and basal cover m2/ha of tree, tree seedlings and shrub species), vegetation index values, temporal vegetation dynamics (%) 1 (GCF, PAF), 4 (TCF/Sacred forests, CCF), 3
126 Negroes et al. [68] Cantao State Park (CSP), Santa Fe Ranch(SFR) 1 Species richness/relative abundance index (mammal) and activity (mammals and birds) 1 (public PA), 2 (private forest fragment) 3
127 Nepstad et al. [75] Various—Brazilian Amazon 1 The ratio of deforestation (average annual deforestation rates from 1997 to 2000 within 10-km-wide strips of land located along the inside and outside of the reserve perimeter) and fire inhibition (fire density (number of fires per square kilometre in 1998) within 20-km-wide strips along the inside and outside of the reserve perimeter) 1, 4 (indigenous) 3 (incl. inside -out)
128 Newton [120] New Forest National Park 1 Biodiversity (number of large mammals), Declines and losses of different species group (descriptive) 1, 4 1
129 Oliveira et al. [121] Various national parks, indigenous territories, forest concessions (all names not stated) 1 Annual rates of forest damage extent and intensity -disturb and deforested (km2/y), 1, 2 (concession production forests), 4 (Indigenous land and reserves for tribes in voluntary isolation), 3
130 Quintana et al. [79] Mbaracayu Natural Forest Reserve (private) (MNFR) and San Rafael Managed Resource Reserve (state) (SRMRR) 2, 3 (1) Attitudes: relationships between the management bodies of the reserves and other stakeholders (descriptive), attitudes towards reserve (descriptive), (2) Behaviour: conflicts (descriptive) 1 (state as managers, private landowners), 3 (NGO as a management authority and landowner) 2
131 Rao et al. [104] Sacred groves (Sadasivakona (SDK), Singirikona (SGK), Kailasakona (KLK), Bupathayyakona (BTK), and Talakona (TKN)) and Reserved forests (RF1-5) in Eastern Ghats 1 Species richness and density(count), basal area (cm), site disturbances: cut stumps, fire, grazing, lopping, invasive species (score) 1 (reserved forests), 4 (sacred groves) 3
132 Rueda [92] Calakmul Biosphere Reserve and other ejidos 1 Deforestation rate (km2) 1, 4 (ejidos-communal agricultural land) 3
133 Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. [96] Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve and surrounding ejidos 1 Forest cover (difference) between CCBR and ejidos (%) 2, 4 (ejidos) 3
134 Stocks et al. [122] Bosawas Biosphere Reserve (BBR) 1 Spatial and temporal differences in forest cover (km2) 2 (colonists), 4 (indigenous) 2
135 Thaworn et al. [82] Sri Nakarin Dam National Park (SNDNP), Chalerm Rattanakosin Forest Reserve (CRFR) 3 Change of behaviour: from various conflicts (resistance, encroaching) to collaboration (protection, voluntary conservation groups, fire watchers, etc.) 1, 5 2
136 Ting et al. [83] Bai-shuijiang National Natural Reserve 3 Difference in dependency on forest resource: Firewood consumption, non-timber forest product value, livestock breeding (2006-2010), households’ firewood consumption, livestock breeding (site comparison) 1, 5 1 (before-after: with and without community involvement through community-based co-management project)
137 Urquiza-Haas et al. [88] Sian Khan Biosphere reserve and other ejidos and private forests (El Zapotal Private Reserve; Tezoco Nuevo ejido; Yodzonot Laguna, Otoch Ma’ax Yetel Kooh protected area, Valladolid ejido; X-Conha ejido, forestry polygon 1, polygon designated for agricultural activities 2; Las Palmas private property; Sian Ka’an-Uaymil, Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve; Uaymil protected area; Uninhabited private properties; Tierra Negra ejido] 1, 3 (1) Ecological: Encounter rates/abundance of mammal and bird species, (2) Behaviour: hunting pressure (perceptions and direct sighting of hunting tools—scale) 2, 3, 4 (ejidos/communal land-holding) 3
138 Van Gils et al. [95] Carrasco Ichilo National Park 1 Proportion (%) of converted closed forest (CCF) between 1986 and 2002 within each land tenure regime 1, 3, 4 2
139 Vuohelainen et al. [94] Reserva Nacional Tambopata (RNT), Comunidad Nativa Infierno (CNI), Comunidad Nativa Palma Real (CNPR), Comunidad Nativa Boca Pariamanu (CNBR), Shihuahuaco (5), Picaflor Research Centre (PRC), Amarumayo (7), Reserva Ecologica Inkaterra (REI), Reserva Ecologica Taricaya (RET), and Reserva Ecologica Paraıso Amazonico (REPA). 1 Land use change/deforestation (ha/year, %) 1, 2,3, 4 2
140 Bodmer et al. [97] Pacaya-Samiria National Reserve 1 Increase in number of mammal species: 1997 (before co-management) and 2004; The per cent change in wildlife densities (%): 1996–2004 1 (state, before), 5 (co-management, after) 1
141 Ruiz-Pérez M et al. [91] Alto Jurua Extractive Reserve (AJER), National Park of Serra do Divisor (NPSD), indigenous lands 1 Land-use change: percentage of deforestation per year (%) (Fig. 3) 1 (national park), 4 (community, trust, indigenous, extractive reserve) and a rural development project (INCRA) 3
142 Wallner et al. [78] UNESCO Biosphere Entlebuch (UBE) and the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve (CBR) 2 Perceptions of locals regarding two parks (descriptive) 1, 4 (local management board) 2
143 Baral et al. [129] Bardia National Park (BNP), Sukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve (SPWR) 2, 3 (1) Attitudes towards conservation (percentage agrees), (2) Behaviour: Frequency of resources harvested (%) 1 incl. 5 (through user groups—with two different levels of participation/functionality of user groups and different levels of NGO influence) 2
144 Norgrove et al. [86] Mount Elgon National Park 3 “overt” and “covert” resistance to the park policies: mobilization of large groups/politicians, feigning ignorance, not turning up for meetings, letting roads become overgrown, bribing park staff and moving boundary markers under cover of darkness 1 incl. 5 (state law enforcement including participatory management) 1
145 Armenteras et al. [56] Various in NW-AMAZON (names mostly not stated): National PAs and natural reserves, indigenous reserves, integrated-management districts 1 Fire occurrence and intensity (mean number of fires, fire radiative power per quadrant), differences in the edge effect (percentage of fires in each management type for 1 km distance bins both inside and outside the forest edge) 1 (national/state), 4 (indigenous) 3
146 Chowdhury M et al. [84] Rema- Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary 2, 3 (1) Attitudes towards conservation, FD and co-management project (percentage agree, scale 1–5); (2) Behaviour: changes of occupation from day-labour and NTFP collection to agriculture 1 with 5 (through Integrated Conservation and Development project) 1
147 Holland et al. [123] Various—not stated 1 Forest cover change (%, by year) 1 (protected areas, forest reserves and patrimony forests), 2 (private/colonisation area), 4 (indigenous) 3
148 Mueller et al. [124] Various—not stated 1 Prevention potential of 3 causes of deforestation: small agriculture, cattle ranching or mechanised agriculture (modelling, logit) 1 (national parks, integrated management), 2 (forest concessions), 4 (indigenous territories) 3
149 Nolte et al. [37] Various—not stated 1 Gross forest cover loss: 2000–2005 (%); 2005–2010 (%); Deforestation 2001–2005 (%) and 2006–2010 (%) 1, 4, sustainable use zones 3
150 Oldekop et al. [43] Sumaco Biosphere Reserve and community forests 1, 3 (1) Ecological: fern and leaf litter frog species richness; forest cover: NDVI, NIR, gap fraction; (2) Social: Establishing community reserves, monitoring and sanctions according to established rules (descriptive, scores-Table 1) 1, 4 (community forests) 3
151 Osuri et al. [105] Sacred groves in Kodagu, Karnataka 1 Species inventory (categorical: no forest, open/disturbed, closed canopy), trends in aboveground biomass (Trends in the ratio of Landsat ETM + band 4 to band 5), changes in the extent of the sacred grove network (perception) 1 (state-managed forests), 4 (sacred groves) 3
152 Paneque-Galvez et al. [64] Beni Biological Station with indigenous territories, forest concessions and private lands 1 Trends (ha) and annual change rates, gain, losses and swap (%) in forest cover and trends in forest fragmentation (core–edge changes) 1, 2 (concessions), 4 [indigenous territories: Tsimane and multi-ethnic TCO inside state-owned PA (30 %)] 3
153 Pfaff et al. [98] Various in Acre (names not stated) 1 Deforestation trend (%, after covariate matching) in two periods separately: 2000–2004 and 2004–2008 1, 4, integrated landscape 3 and unprotected versus protected
154 Scullion et al. [125] Various in Madre de Dios Area 1 Land-cover change (%, ha), impacts of overlapping land use policies (% reduction in the ecosystem conversion) 1, 4 and 2 (no conservation) 3
155 Vallino [55] NA (experimental/modelled study) 1 Green patches, total biomass. Green patches = number of patches with biomass >0 at the end of the simulation divided by the total number of patches that had biomass >0 at the start of the simulation. Total biomass = sum of the biomass of each patch at the end of the simulation divided by the sum of the biomass of each patch at the start of the simulation Other: open access, external law enforcement, internal rules 2
156 Vergara-Asenjo et al. [66] Various in Panama 1 (Mature) forest cover change (%) and avoided deforestation over different land tenures (% of treated pixel between 1992–2008 and 2000–2008, covariate matching 1, 4 (indigenous/comarcas) and their combinations and overlaps totalling 6 tenure regimes): 1) legally established comarcas, no overlap with protected areas (C); (2) overlap between legally established comarcas and protected areas (C-Over); (3) claimed lands, no overlap with protected areas (Cl); (4) overlap between claimed lands and protected areas (Cl-Over); (5) nationally protected areas, no overlap with indigenous territories (PA); and (6) other lands, no protection (OL) 3
157 Vidal et al. [126] Monarch Butterfly Reserve 1 Forest cover change/deforestation and degradation (ha) by large and small scale logging and climate related (floods, strong winds, drought, and fire) 1, 2, 4 (ejidos) 2
  1. Governance regimes are coded as follows: state (=1), private (=2), NGO (=3), community (=4), co-management (=5), hybrid/other (describe). Comparators are coded as follows: governance change over time in the same PA (=1); governance compared to other governance regime in different PAs or to an other governance type within the same PA during same time period (=2), or in different forest governance regimes during same time period (3); Other (describe). Outcomes are coded as ecological (=1); attitudes (=2); behaviour (=3); spill-over (=4)